Difference between revisions of "Hive types"
(Created page with "Every hive type has its own characteristics. On the one hand, '''traditional hives''' do not need '''special skills''' to build them, have '''low starting costs''' and are oft...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| − | '''Ethiopia:''' | + | '''Ethiopia:''' About 95% of Ethiopian beekeepers use traditional hive-systems made of cheap locally available materials (clay, straw, bamboo, false banana leaves, bark, logs, …). The remaining percentage of beekeepers use transitional (promoted since 1978) and modern hives. <ref>Gidey, Y., & Mekonen, T. (2010). Participatory Technology and Constraints Assessment to Improve the Livelihood of Beekeepers in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v2i1.49654</ref> <ref>Taye, B., Desta, A., Girma, C., & Mekonen, W. T. (2015). Evaluation of Transitional and Modern Hives for Honey Production in Mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research, 3(1), 1-6.</ref> A survey by Tesfaye & Tesfaye (2007) reveiled reasons, why most beekeepers do not possess modern hives-systems: the starting costs are too high, lack of managing skills, unavailability of modern bee hives in the particular area, or a combination of the mentioned issues. <ref>Tesfaye, K., & Tesfaye, L. (2007). Study of honey production system in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha district in mid rift valley of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19(11), 1-9.</ref> The number of movable frame hive-systems was estimated to be 100,843. <ref>Gemechis, L. Y. (2014): Beeswax production and marketing in Ethiopia: Challenges in value chain. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3(6), 447-451.</ref> XXXXXXXXX |
Revision as of 16:21, 6 June 2018
Every hive type has its own characteristics. On the one hand, traditional hives do not need special skills to build them, have low starting costs and are often made of simple, locally available materials. On the other hand, they have also disadvantages: the bee management is difficult (inspecting, harvesting, disease prophylaxis, adding supplementary food, …), hives are more susceptible against external environmental stress (climate conditions, pests and predators, …), the yield of honey bee products is often lower comparable to modern types, and some hive types are even destructive to the surrounding forests (e.g. bark hives, log hives, …). [1]
Ethiopia: About 95% of Ethiopian beekeepers use traditional hive-systems made of cheap locally available materials (clay, straw, bamboo, false banana leaves, bark, logs, …). The remaining percentage of beekeepers use transitional (promoted since 1978) and modern hives. [2] [3] A survey by Tesfaye & Tesfaye (2007) reveiled reasons, why most beekeepers do not possess modern hives-systems: the starting costs are too high, lack of managing skills, unavailability of modern bee hives in the particular area, or a combination of the mentioned issues. [4] The number of movable frame hive-systems was estimated to be 100,843. [5] XXXXXXXXX
Indonesia:
References
- ↑ Gupta, R. K., Reybroeck, W., van Veen, J. W., & Gupta, A. (2014). Beekeeping for Poverty Alleviation and Livelihood Security: Vol. 1: Technological Aspects of Beekeeping. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9199-1
- ↑ Gidey, Y., & Mekonen, T. (2010). Participatory Technology and Constraints Assessment to Improve the Livelihood of Beekeepers in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v2i1.49654
- ↑ Taye, B., Desta, A., Girma, C., & Mekonen, W. T. (2015). Evaluation of Transitional and Modern Hives for Honey Production in Mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research, 3(1), 1-6.
- ↑ Tesfaye, K., & Tesfaye, L. (2007). Study of honey production system in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha district in mid rift valley of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19(11), 1-9.
- ↑ Gemechis, L. Y. (2014): Beeswax production and marketing in Ethiopia: Challenges in value chain. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3(6), 447-451.
